beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On July 20, 2009, the Defendant was the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and C concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “the instant construction contract”) with the content that he/she was awarded a contract for 3 billion won among the new construction works of the apartment house in E and five parcels (hereinafter “instant apartment house”) outside South-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “instant apartment house”).
B. The Defendant was able to enter into the instant construction contract with the Plaintiff and F’s aid, and accordingly, the Defendant, around January 201, prepared a written confirmation of payment (hereinafter “written confirmation of payment”) that promises to pay KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff by February 28, 2012, and a written confirmation of payment that promises to pay KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff by May 31, 2012 (hereinafter “written confirmation of payment”).
C. At the time, C had not been paid KRW 1.6 billion among the construction price under the instant construction contract, and was proceeding in this case.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant attached the separate sheet to each of the instant payment confirmations, stating that “each of the instant payment confirmations takes effect after winning the judgment in the relevant lawsuit,” and signed and sealed each of the instant payment confirmations.
On the other hand, C filed an application against D for a payment order claiming payment of KRW 1.6 billion for the unpaid construction cost with the Republic of Korea District Court 201j319, Namyang District Court, and the said court issued a payment order on January 28, 2011 (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and the instant payment order was finalized on February 16, 2011.
E. Also, in order to recover the above KRW 1.6 billion against D, C seeks revocation of the above contract on December 7, 2010 on the ground that the trust agreement between D, G, and H constituted fraudulent act against G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), H (hereinafter “H”), and D.